The way the Khrushchev
leadership handled the Cuban crisis of 1962, starting from the decision to
install rockets to their removal in hot haste without exposing sufficiently the
imperialist machinations and putting up any form of resistance to the US policy
of piracy, created confusion in the communist circles and people at large the
world over. In examining the issue critically, the article emphasizes the
revolutionary significance of peace movement and the correct approach to
resolving differences in the international communist movement.

Is the law formulated by
Lenin that imperialism inevitably generates wars still valid in the present
changed international situation? How far real is the danger of war now? What
is the relative strength and weakness of world imperialism? How should the
communists approach the question of world peace? Should peace be considered an
end in itself or should it be linked up with the task of intensifying the
anti-imperialist national liberation movements in the colonies and semi-colonies
and the revolutionary struggles in the metropolitan capitalist countries? Is it
possible, in the changed situation obtaining at present, to go over to socialism
from capitalism peacefully? Is the parliamentary way one of the various forms
of peaceful socialist revolution? Can Parliament, an organ of bourgeois
democracy, be transformed into a genuine instrument of people’s will? On these
and on other allied questions relating to war and peace, policy of peaceful
co-existence of the capitalist and socialist systems and transition from
capitalism to socialism, serious differences had been brewing for sometime past
in the world communist camp, and different communist parties had been explaining
their respective stands on these questions in their own way, maintaining still
an atmosphere of unity and friendship between them. But centring round the
way the Cuban crisis was solved by Khrushchev, the differences have come out
in the open with unprecedented bitterness and mutual recriminations, much to the
delight of the imperialists. We cannot deny it.

It goes without saying that
every Marxist-Leninist, not excluding those who are in disagreement with
Khrushchev on his stand on the Cuban crisis, considers the prevention of world
war and preservation of world peace to be of supreme importance in the present
international situation. That the duty of saving humanity from the horrors and
devastations of war primarily rests on the socialist peace camp cannot also be
disputed. It requires no special knowledge to understand that socialism, let
alone communism, cannot flourish on the ashes of a world ruined by a
thermonuclear world war. Still then why cannot a substantial section of the
communists, if not the major section of them, agree with Khrushchev on the
way of solution of the Cuban crisis? It is an affront to this section of
communists, some of whom had successfully led their revolutions and are building
socialism in their countries, to complain that they have become war-maniacs and
want to solve international disputes by means of wars. It will be sheer
immodesty to think that they are completely ignorant of the theoretical analyses
of Marx, Engels, Lenin about the strategy and tactics of the revolutionary
struggle of the working class and the question of war and peace. Only an
incorrigible egotist can think so. There is no valid ground to conclude that
they are out to discredit the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in general and
Khrushchev in particular, in their bid to capture the position of the leading
communist party in the world communist movement. Everyone would have supported
Khrushchev and his supporters in the communist parties of the East European
countries, who denounced their opponents openly in their Party Congresses, if
they had pinpointed their theoretical differences with their opponents clearly
and had established the correctness of their stand. But far from adopting that
reasonable course, they thought it fit to put into the mouth of their opponents
what the latter had never said or meant to say and made unfounded accusations,
some of which have been mentioned above.

Let us, first of all, point
out the differences between the two contending groups. It is not the contention
of the opponents of Khrushchev that the Soviet Union ought not to have removed
the rockets from Cuba and should rather have taught the bellicose imperialist
circles of the United States a lesson by strong military actions in the
Caribbean. They fully endorse the Soviet decision to remove the rockets
from Cuba. What they object to is the way the whole affair was handled,
right from the decision to install rockets in Cuba up to their removal in hot
haste without sufficiently exposing the imperialist machination and putting up
any resistance to the policy of piracy of the United States. Every peace-loving
person would agree with Khrushchev’s analysis that “on a closer look, the world
now lives, figuratively speaking, on a powder magazine crammed with
thermonuclear weapons” and that “the most acute point of international tension
was the crisis in the Caribbean”. That at such a critical juncture any
hot-headed step might have brought the USSR and the USA into actual warfare
resulting in huge devastation of Cuba, cannot also be disputed. Judged from
that practical consideration as well as in view of the primary responsibility of
the socialist peace camp to save mankind from war, one cannot but support the
Soviet decision to remove the rockets from Cuba. But that does not put an end to
the controversy; a lot of questions still remain unanswered. We like to put
those questions to Khrushchev and his supporters and request them all to answer
unambiguously those questions so as to enable the communists all over the world
to understand the correctness or otherwise of the way the Cuban affair,
from the decision to install rockets to their removal, was handled.

Khrushchev, to defend his
stand, emphasized the need for mutual concessions and compromise for solving the
international problems. It is true that peaceful solution of outstanding issues
between different states through negotiation presupposes the adoption of the
principle of give-and-take, of mutual concessions and compromise. Concessions,
to be really mutual in effect and not mutual in words but unilateral in effect,
have to be evenly matched on both sides. In this particular case of solution of
the Cuban crisis what is the concession that has been given to the imperialists
and, in return thereof, what concession has been gained from them? The Soviet
Union has removed the ballistic rockets and withdrawn the IL-28 planes from Cuba
whereas the United States has, in return, simply given the pledge that it will
not attack Cuba and will restrain its allies from such actions. To all intent
and purpose, the terms of compromise are such that they have entailed unilateral
concession by the Soviet Union and not mutual concessions; the so-called
concession given by the United States is no concession at all. For, it is almost
impossible for the United States to launch an attack and continue the aggression
on Cuba, a sovereign independent state and a member of the United Nations,
openly in utter disregard of world public opinion and the UN Charter. Had such
an attack been possible, the United States would have done so long ago instead
of adopting the roundabout path of organizing the Cuban counter-revolutionaries
on the mainland of USA and sending them to Cuba to overthrow the present regime.
The very fact that the socialist Cuba existed in spite of and against the will
of the bellicose imperialist circles of the United States much before the latter
gave the pledge that it would not attack Cuba, is enough to prove the
meaninglessness of the pledge itself. Hence, the pledge given by the United
States that it will not attack Cuba, when the reality is that the former cannot
in the present international situation launch such an aggression and continue it
without sustaining irreparable loss, far outweighing the doubtful gain from the
aggression, can by no means be called a concession. Besides, who on earth wanted
Khrushchev to secure this pledge from the USA? Moreover, has this pledge any
real value? Is there any guarantee that the United States will honestly honour
it? Rather, does not history provide us with innumerable instances, where
non-aggression pacts made by imperialist powers (mind it, the pledge is not a
pact having international recognition and official status; it is, at best a
gentleman’s word, if a hardboiled imperialist can be called a gentleman, having
no official sanction, entailing no official obligation on the part of the state
whose head makes the pledge to honour it) were most flagrantly violated by the
imperialists themselves to further their imperialist designs ? If Khrushchev
still feels that the pledge given by Kennedy is of much value, may we ask him if
he considers the way he followed to be the only way? Was there no better way of
handling the Cuban affair? In place of conceding the demands of the
imperialists immediately without putting up even a semblance of resistance,
could not the Soviet ships be ordered to wait on the line and the rockets be
kept intact for some time, in order to expose the imperialist game, effectively
mobilize the forces of peace and socialism, and wrest from the unwilling hands
of the United States some real concession like the removal of the rockets from
Turkey or the abolition of the military bases set up by the imperialists around
the Soviet Union or at least the withdrawal of the US naval base at Guantanamo
Bay as demanded by Fidel Castro in his speech on October 28?

Besides the above questions,
there are other questions also. Pravda, in an article published on
January 7, had asked : “Which Marxist-Leninist would agree that the way to
victory of communism lies through a thermonuclear war?” Quite true; no
communist can hold brief for the erroneous concept that thermonuclear war is the
means of establishing world communist society. But is there any communist party
that advocates this theory? So far as our knowledge and information go there is
none. Why then had the question been raised by Pravda except for the
purpose of distorting the views of those who cannot fully agree with Khrushchev
on the way the Cuban crisis had been solved by him? Pravda
further stated in the above-mentioned article: “Those who criticize the method
by which the Cuban crisis was solved actually reject the policy of peaceful
co-existence”. There is absolutely no logic in this statement. For, while
accepting fully the policy of peaceful co-existence of capitalist and socialist
systems as the only correct general line of the foreign policy of a socialist
country and even supporting the Soviet decision to remove the rockets from Cuba,
one can reasonably disagree with Khrushchev on the way of solution of the
crisis in the Caribbean. It is a pity that our Soviet comrades are failing to
notice the distinction between opposing the peaceful solution of the Cuban
crisis (no communist party is opposed to peaceful solution) and opposing
the way the Cuban crisis was solved peacefully. Furthermore, we find
Khrushchev making contradictory statements. He, in his report to the Supreme
Soviet, said: “But we shipped our weapons to Cuba precisely to prevent an attack
on her”. Was it necessary to install a few rockets in Cuba so close to the
United States to prevent an attack on the former? Khrushchev, in a statement
immediately after the solution of the Cuban crisis, admitted that, not to speak
of the few rockets installed in Cuba, even ten times that number were not
sufficient to forestall an attack by the United States on Cuba. In his speech on
January 19 before the workers of East Germany, he said : “Cuba is not a
convenient place to station rockets. When it comes to territory, we have better
places than Cuba to put rockets. Today, technique guarantees that any distance
can be bridged with rockets”. If it is so and, in fact, it is so, why then was
Cuba selected as a place to station rockets? The territorial disadvantages of
Cuba for the purpose of installing rockets ought to have been taken into account
and no rocket shipped there. Did not Khrushchev view beforehand that the US
imperialists would, some day or other, come to know of the existence of rockets
in Cuba, create a row over it and use it as a plea for intensifying their
aggressive moves against Cuba? If he did not, then he is guilty of
short-sightedness. If, on the other hand, he had viewed this, what steps did he
take, at the time of installing rockets or thereafter, to circumvent and foil
the possible imperialist moves? Was it not hot-headedness to order the Soviet
ships to proceed against the embargo imposed by the United States and face any
eventuality? And once the rockets were installed and the Soviet ships ordered
to move on against the embargo, was it correct to remove the rockets and
re-order the ships to turn back immediately after the first order was
given, without making any attempt to expose the policy of piracy of the United
States? Events proved that the Soviet Union neither envisaged beforehand the
possible moves which the US imperialists might make nor planned any definite
course of action to counter and foil such moves. It was simply caught napping.
In what way do such thoughtless and unplanned acts like installing rockets in
Cuba without considering its territorial disadvantages and the possible
imperialist counter-moves, ordering the Soviet ships to move on against the
embargo imposed by the United States and re-ordering the ships to turn back the
moment they came in contact with the US fleet, removing the rockets so hurriedly
before the US threat of attack on Cuba, etc., differ from adventurist acts
guided not by reason and foresight but by impulse and carried out not according
to well-thought out plans but in the manner forced by circumstances?

But why did Khrushchev act so
clumsily? In our considered view, it is due to his wrong study of the US
strategy and approach to the question of war and peace. Khrushchev, due to his
thermonuclear war-phobia, wrongly thought that the aim of the US strategy in the
Caribbean was to start an all-out thermonuclear world war between the
imperialist camp and the socialist camp into which the world social forces are
polarized today and, hence, in his characteristic manner, he went the whole hog
to avert the war by any means and preserve peace at any cost. The
imperialists know that economically, politically and even militarily the
socialist camp is now the superior camp and given the existing balance of force,
a third world war between the two camps, if it breaks out at present, would
bring about a complete destruction of the world imperialist colonial order and
victory of world socialism. So, it is doubtful if the United States, by creating
the Cuban crisis, wanted to start an all-out thermonuclear world war between the
two camps. But what is certain is that the aim of the US strategy in the
Caribbean was to start a partial and localized war with the Soviet Union, make
use of logistic advantage, inflict partial and temporary defeat on the USSR and
regain the military prestige the United States had lost in the Korean war and in
leading the counter-revolution in Cuba and the South-East Asian countries. The
United States has been able to regain its lost military prestige to a very large
extent even without a fight with the Soviet Union in the Caribbean, because of
the impression it has been able to create, due to the incorrect way of
handling the situation by Khrushchev, that the Soviet Union has been forced
to retreat in the face of the tough policy and superior military might of the
United States. This impression is responsible partially for the recent shift in
the foreign policy of the non-aligned Afro-Asian countries more towards the
United States and for restoring the sinking morale of the bellicose circles of
all capitalist countries to the detriment of the growth, development and
intensification of the national liberation movements in the colonies and
semi-colonies, revolutionary struggles in the metropolitan capitalist countries,
and the world peace movement.

We reject the contention that
the Soviet Union retreated before imperialist threat in the case of Cuba.
Because, no question of retreat can arise as there is no ground for it. But it
cannot be denied that the Soviet Union had given the United States more
concession than the situation warranted, virtually amounting to unilateral
concession by the former with no return-concession by the latter. Khrushchev,
of course, does not think so. In his report to the Supreme Soviet he declared:
“The most rabid imperialists who stake on starting a thermonuclear war over Cuba
have not been able to do so. The Soviet Union, the forces of peace and
socialism, have demonstrated that they are in a position to impose peace on the
exponents of war”. It is perfectly true in the present international situation
that the socialist countries together with the peace-loving peoples of the world
can prevent a particular war and impose a particular peace on the
imperialist war-maniacs. The retreat of the Anglo-Franco-Israeli combine before
the united actions of the socialist countries to stop aggression on Egypt is a
concrete example of it. But can the way the Cuban crisis had been solved
be characterized, as Khrushchev has said, as an imposition of peace by the
forces of peace and socialism on the exponents of war? We think that it cannot
be so characterized. We agree that a war over Cuba was averted. But each and
every averting of war is not imposition of peace on the exponents of war. For,
war may be temporarily averted by capitulating to imperialism or by giving it
concessions. No sane man would ever consider such capitulation or such
unilateral concessions as an imposition of peace by the forces of peace and
socialism on the exponents of war. Whether a particular action is imposition of
peace on the war-mongers or not is determined by the terms of compromise, the
nature of the concession given and of that gained. Had it been possible for
Khrushchev to compel the United States to remove its rockets from Turkey or
liquidate its military bases around the Soviet Union or at least quit its naval
base at Guantanamo Bay in reciprocity of the Soviet action of removing rockets
and IL-28 planes from Cuba, the averting of war over Cuba could have been aptly
called an imposition of peace by the forces of peace and socialism on the
exponents of war. But since the war was averted by unilaterally giving
concession to the USA with no return-concession gained from it (we have already
discussed it), we can neither call it a concession proper nor an imposition of
peace on the forces of war. There is, therefore, an element of appeasing the
bellicose imperialist circles of the United States in it for which there was
neither necessity nor reason.

It is being repeated by the
Soviet comrades that those who are critical of Khrushchev’s stand on the Cuban
affair forget that imperialism “has nuclear teeth” and consequently underrate
the strength of imperialism and the danger of a thermonuclear world war. This is
not true. We remind our Soviet comrades that it is not his opponents but
Khrushchev himself who, some time back, in order to prove his contention that
the law that imperialism inevitably generates wars was no more valid, came out
with the thesis that in the present changed international situation,
imperialism is incapable of starting war and thereby underestimated the power of
imperialism to start war and the danger of war. Those who are critical of his
way of solving the Cuban crisis never minimized nor minimize even now the
striking power of imperialism to start war and the very real danger of war
obtaining at present. It may not be out of place to mention here that modern
wars are not so much the result of individual hot-headedness as they are the
outcome of the exploiting capitalist system, and take shape as per the law
governing them. Individuals do, definitely, play important roles but at no time
can they go above the law. One who keeps this tenet of Marxism-Leninism in mind
and scientifically studies the development of the law becomes neither panicky
about the danger of a thermonuclear world war nor oblivious to its danger.

This brings us to the
question of peace. We must not forget that communists are fighters for peace and
are not pacifists. A Marxist-Leninist approaches every issue from the standpoint
of necessity of revolution and progress and this makes all the difference
between the communist understanding of and approach to the question of world
peace and pacifist illusion. To a revolutionary, even though he considers the
preservation of world peace to be of supreme importance in the present-day
international situation, peace is not an end in itself, not a self-sufficient
entity. So, he is not in favour of any and every kind of peace, nor is he
opposed to all kinds of war. He is against all unjust wars and aggressive wars
of annexation but supports and encourages wars of liberation for the
emancipation of the masses of the people from the exploiting system. He is,
likewise, against pacifism, the idea and acts to purchase peace at any cost,
but resolutely fights for that peace which helps revolution to grow, develop
and intensify. The revolutionary significance of the present-day peace movement
and the preservation of world peace lies precisely in the fact that by these is
created and, in fact, has been created that favourable condition in the
international situation which makes it impossible for the imperialists to
interfere into the internal affairs of other states, thereby helping the
revolutionary forces in the metropolitan and dependent capitalist countries to
conduct revolutionary struggle against their respective enemies, free from
foreign intervention. Unlike in the past when the revolutionary forces in a
country had, for the success of the revolution, to defeat not only the internal
forces of reaction but also foreign imperialist powers, the peace movement, if
organized and conducted properly, never losing sight of its revolutionary
significance and potentiality, can now stop foreign imperialist intervention
and, by that, isolate the main enemy of revolution from its reserve forces. This
is no mean achievement, no mean contribution to the cause of revolution.
Preservation of world peace and the present-day peace movement, therefore, must
not be confused with pacifism, with the idea of anyhow preserving peace, even
sacrificing revolution. This fight for peace is one of the very many
complex revolutionary means to accelerate the course of socialist revolution in
metropolitan capitalist countries and national liberation movement in colonial
and dependent countries. Any Marxist-Leninist who loses sight of the
revolutionary significance of the present-day peace movement and the
preservation of world peace, considers peace as a self-sufficient objective and,
consequently, isolates the question of peace movement and world peace from the
task of intensifying anti-imperialist revolutionary movement and struggle, is
guilty of preaching pacifism, and objectively appeases imperialism. He even goes
to the extent of curbing the advance of revolution and progress in dependent and
metropolitan capitalist countries in his craze for so-called peace. Moreover, he
fails to notice that by such actions he brings serious damage not only to the
cause of revolution and progress but also to the cause of world peace, on the
importance of which he so glibly talks. For, the ultimate guarantee of world
peace lies not in the pledge of the imperialists not to launch war, far less in
appeasing them by giving unnecessary concessions to avert war but mainly
in the intensification and success of national liberation movement in colonies
and semi-colonies and socialist revolution in metropolitan capitalist countries
along with the development of world peace movement. Unnecessary and unilateral
concession given to imperialism to avert war which is objectively tantamount to
appeasement, has always whetted the appetite of imperialism, resulting in newer
and fresh demands being advanced by it, ultimately leading to the outbreak of
more brutal wars of annexation here and there on the globe.

The charge of the Soviet
comrades that those who do not support the way in which the Cuban crisis was
solved, are non-believers in the theory and practice of peaceful co-existence
between capitalist and socialist states, is equally incorrect. They definitely
believe in the policy of peaceful co-existence between capitalist and socialist
states and in fact, are practising it. What they intend to emphasize is that,
while practising the policy of peaceful co-existence and trying to develop such
co-operation, one should not harbour the illusion that imperialism would change
its essential nature and become genuine advocate of peace, peaceful co-existence
and international co-operation. The imperialists are speaking of peace and
co-operation with the socialist states not because of any basic change in their
essential nature but because of the exigency of the situation, i.e. superior
military might of the socialist camp. If this superiority goes, the imperialists
would miss no opportunity to start a world war. Reiteration of the essential
bellicose nature of imperialism is called for as it appears to us that
Khrushchev believes that it is possible to bring the ruling class of the United
States to reason and remove the danger of war (we shall be very glad if this
reading of ours proves wrong) as otherwise the main aim of the Soviet foreign
policy should have been to isolate the United States, the most adventurous
imperialist country, from its less adventurous allies, rather than trying to win
its goodwill and anyhow reach an understanding with it.

Before we conclude, we appeal
to the international communist leaders to forbear from mutual recriminations now
being indulged in by both the contending groups. One group is condemning the
other as “dogmatists”, “pseudo-revolutionaries”, “believers in the theory of
war”, “followers of the policy of Chenghiz Khan”, etc., etc., only to be equally
accused by the other groups as “revisionists”, “traitors”, “followers of the
policy of capitulation to imperialism”, so on and so forth. What purpose are
these invectives serving? Are they, in any way, contributing to clear up the
terrible ideological confusion that now confronts the world communist movement?
Do they help in better understanding the mutual points of views? True, there
are serious differences between the parties. But how are those differences going
to be solved — by the use of invectives or by conducting principled criticism
and self-criticism? Does the Leninist principle of criticism and self-criticism
allow such wild charges to be made and abusive language used against each
other? Hard words, so goes the saying, break no bone. This attitude, expected
all the more of communist leaders, is conspicuous by its absence. As a result,
we are finding hard words are complicating matters by straining relations
between the contending parties as well as individual relations between different
leaders. We feel that in the interests of solving the present ideological
crisis and consolidating and strengthening communist unity, necessary
preparation for convening a conference of the representatives of different
communist parties should be started without further delay. Because, with the
present trend of polemics continuing, further delay in convening such a
conference will only widen the differences instead of bridging them. The filthy
argument that a conference of the representatives of different communist parties
would only precipitate an open split in the communist camp deserves no serious
consideration inasmuch as those who apprehend organizational split due to the
prevailing ideological differences in the camp of socialism are either incapable
of discharging the responsibility in maintaining unity between different
communist parties and holding high the banner of proletarian internationalism or
are just the advocates of anyhow maintaining unity. In any case, let not the
present leaders of the international communist movement destroy, by their
reckless unilateral moves, the heritage of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and
legions of martyrs who laid down their lives for the cause of communism.